Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated
Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided –– that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation. –– A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Section 33, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 27 Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 288 Return of commission
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 288 Return of commission
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 288 Return of commission
- Crpc 1973 s. 288 Return of commission
- s. 158 What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under section 32 or 33
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly is alleged in a criminal trial resulting in death or injury to multiple persons: (1) Charges must be framed distinctly and specifically for each victim and for each accused, particularly distinguishing which accused is alleged to have caused death of which victim and on what basis (direct liability or vicarious liability under Section 149); (2) The existence of an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC (assembly of 5+ persons with common object to commit offence) must be established as foundational to any conviction under Sections 143, 146, 148, or 149; (3) The common object of the assembly must be inferred from the circumstances of gathering, time, place, and conduct as a group - not from individual overt acts alone; (4) The mere presence of an accused in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 for offences committed by other members if he had knowledge that such offence was likely to be committed; (5) Defective charge framing that fails to communicate to the accused with precision the nature of their alleged liability violates Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes failure of justice warranting appellate intervention; (6) When, after substantial passage of time (such as 26 years), procedural defects and evidentiary degradation make fresh trial impracticable, public law damages awarded to victims by the State may be an appropriate remedy for state's failure in maintaining law and order.
On this section: Relevancy of evidence given in prior judicial proceeding for proving truth of facts in subsequent proceeding; limited exceptions for when witness is dead or unavailable
-
Salman Khan vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An examination-in-chief of a witness who has not been subjected to cross-examination by the adverse party cannot be read in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless it is proved that the adverse party actively prevented or waived the cross-examination.
On this section: To test the admissibility of the statement of eyewitness Harish Dulani who disappeared during trial.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in proceeding with the appeal filed by the Assessee in the absence of Mr. Meattle having been served or made available for cross- examination by the Assessee? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in placing reliance on Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act while denying an opportunity to the Assessee to cross-examine Mr. Meattle?" 17. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee and Ms. Lakshmi Gurung and Mr. P. Roy Choudhary, Standing counsel for the Revenue. 18. Mr. Vohra submitted …
Questions about Section 33
What have the courts held on Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Relevancy of evidence given in prior judicial proceeding for proving truth of facts in subsequent proceeding; limited exceptions for when witness is dead or unavailable. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 33, section 33 IEA, section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018).
What should I read with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 27 (Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 33, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.